1
Discource about jindai moji (the script of the divine age) in Tokugawa Japan
Why did the discours about jindai moji appear during the Tokugawa period?
Elizaveta Zyrenkova
JAP4691 – Master's Thesis in Modern Japan/60 credits/Spring 2019/
Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages (IKOS) UNIVERSITETET I OSLO
20.05.2019
2
3
Discource about jindai moji (the script of the divine age) in Tokugawa Japan
1. Why did the discours about jindai moji appear during the Tokugawa period?
2. What are the main pre-Meiji works that claim that jindai moji existed? What exactly do they say about jindai moji?
3. Do they present jindai moji alphabets? If so, what kind of alphabets are those?
4. What did the creators of jindai moji discourses or alphabets want to say? What did they want the jindai moji they “found” to prove?
Supervisor: Marcus Jacobus Teeuwen
4
© Elizaveta Zyrenkova 2019
Discource about jindai moji (the script of the divine age) in Tokugawa Japan Elizaveta Zyrenkova
http://www.duo.uio.no/
Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo
5
6
Summary
It is a well known fact that the contemprorary Japanese is written with hiragana, katakana and the Chinese characters. There is a theory that claims that an ancient alphabet existed in Japan before any of the aforementioned writing systems. This alphabet is often refered to as kamiyō moji or jindai moji. This theory has emerged during the 14th century in Japan but it recieved most attention during the Tokugawa period. This master thesis focuses on works on jindai moji that were written during the Tokugawa period. I seek to answer auestions such as: What is jindai moji? What did Tokugawa scholars have to say about it? How do different alphabets that claim to be the jindai moji compare to each other? But most importantly: Why did jindai moji recieve so much attention exactly during the Tokugawa period?
This master thesis presents five works on jindai moji that were written during the Tokugawa period (one of which is written by the famous Kokugaku scholar Hirata Atsutane), two works on jindai moji that were written during the 14th century and one work on jindai moji that was written during the early Meiji period.
These works vary greatly and my main point is that different authors had a very different approach to the jindai moji. Some only used jindai moji it as a supporting argument for some kind of theory, while others were more interested in comparing different alphabets that claim to be the jindai moji. Also at the beguinning of the Tokugawa period the discuassion around jindai moji was connected to the idea of the sankyō itchi (unity of Buddhism, Confucianism and Shinto) while as we approach the end of the Tokugawa period the discource around jindai moji becomes more nativist.
One of the works on jindai moji that was written during the Tokugawa period (Iroha
Monben) has never been translated to English language before. This master thesis includes my full translation of it (Chapter 4). Also I discuss a book called «Alphabets from the
heavenly kingdom» (Chapter 8) that features 19 different examples of the alleged jindai moji. I found this book at the Akiruno city document archive. Accoarding to the archive I am the first customer ever to take an interest in this book. This might be the first time this book has been used in a reseach dedicated to jindai moji.
7
8
Foreword/ Acknowledgments
The topic of jindai moji does not receive much attention in the media. It is also difficult to find any articles or books dedicated to this topic. When I first got introduced to this topic by my supervisor Mark Teeuwen I could not believe that despite the fact that I have been studying the Japanese language for eleven years, I have never heard about jindai moji.
Several studies have been made on the nativism during the Tokugawa period as well as on the koshi-koden. However I could not find any studies that specifically focused on the discourse around jindai moji that emerged during the Tokugawa Japan. Therefore I decided to take a look on the jindai moji during the Tokugawa period specifically. I could not express my gratitude toward my supervisor enough, as he was the one who introduced me to many of my sources, as well as he was the one who suggested that I take a trip to Japan to find more about the topic.
I would also very much like to thank Linda Aas who helped me greatly with correcting my grammatical and spelling mistakes in this master thesis. English is not my first language, therefore it was absolutely crucial.
I would also like to thank my friends, family and my former Japanese teachers who supported me in my decision to take a master degree in Japanese language and later supported me during the time when I was working of this master thesis. Especially I would like to thank my grandfather Vladimir Ageev who has always believed in me.
9
10
Table of contents
Introduction chapter: What is jindai moji? Why did the discource
about jindai moji appear during the Tokugawa period? ... 11
Chapter 2: Jindai moji before the Tokugawa period ... 21
Chapter 3: Description of Tokugawa Japan. Taiseikyō... 25
Chapter 4: Iroha Monben ... 34
Summary of the first four chapters ... 46
Chapter 5: Hotsuma Tsutae. New interpretations og the divine age narratives in the ancient texts ... … 48
Chapter 6: Hirata Atsutane and Kanna hifumi den ... 57
Chapter 7: My trip to Akiruno. Akiru moji ... 63
Chapter 8: Alphabet from heavenly kingdom. Toshizawa Uzen…….…70
Summary of chapters 5-8 ... 76
Conclusion ... 78
11 Introduction chapter: What is jindai moji? Why did the discours about jindai moji appear
during the Tokugawa period?
This master thesis is about jindai moji. “Jindai moji” can mean several different things. The word “jindai” refers to “The Age of the Gods” chapters in Kojiki and Nihon shoki, (before Emperor Jinmu). “Moji” is a common Japanese word for letters. Therefore jindai moji can roughly be translated as «letters of divine age».
At the same time it seems that the exact meaning of the word “jindai moji” was not specified during the Edo period when most works on jindai moji were written. Therefore I would like to start with listing all the meanings that the term jindai moji can have.
The accession of Emperor Jinmu is traditionally dated as 660 BC therefore “jindai moji” can mean “ancient letters created in Japan before 660 B.C.” Currently the Japanese language is written with Chinese characters, combined with two authentically Japanese syllabary systems (hiragana and katakana), Latin letters and Arabic numerals. According to those who claim that jindai moji has existed in Japan before 660 B.C. jindai moji are letters that
apparently existed in Japan before any of the aforementioned writing systems and they are currently not in use. It is unclear if the jindai moji alphabet included letters only, or if it included both letters and numerals. Those who study jindai moji, it seems, rarely focus on that particular aspect of jindai moji.
As a Japanese language lover myself, I soon found myself interested in this theory – that Japan has a long forgotten ancient alphabet but that is no longer in use. However as I started to research this topic I soon started to realise that the existence of such an alphabet is unlikely. So why continue researching this topic?
Even if such an alphabet has never existed there are still several different reasons to research this topic. Among those reasons is the fact that there are reasons why certain people during certain times have claimed that jindai moji letters exist. It could be interesting to find out what those reasons could be. Another reason to research the topic is the fact the jindai moji alphabets actually do exist. But most likely those alphabets are far less ancient that they claim to be. Who made those alphabets and why is another interesting topic for research. Finally as someone generally interested in languages I could not resist taking a closer look at the alphabets themselves.
The alphabets that claim to be jindai moji do come in all shapes and forms. There are at least twenty of them and I was lucky enough to find a book where the majority of those alphabets are listed with some information about places where those alphabets were originally found.
Earlier I have said that jindai moji can mean several different things. First of all, the word
“jindai moji” stands for alleged ancient Japanese letters. But “jindai moji”, it seems, can also
12 mean the “ancient Japanese language” itself. Some of those who wrote books on jindai moji (such as for example “Taiseikyō” published in Edo in 1679, “Iroha Monben” published in Kyoto in 1763, “Hotsuma Tsutae”, distributed in 1760s etc.) seem to use the term jindai moji both when referring to ancient Japanese letters and when referring to a language that was used in Japan at the time when jindai moji letters apparently were in use. It is worth noticing that many scholars seem to use the term jindai moji as an umbrella term for all the
alphabets that claim to be jindai moji. So far I have not seen any scholar discuss which of those alphabets could be “the real one”. It is of course important to remember that there is no actual “real one” as it is unlikely that an ancient alphabet called jindai moji has ever existed.
Jindai moji is also an idea of important political value. Quite a few of those who have written books on the subject of jindai moji (for example “Shaku Nihongi” published in 1301, “Nihon shoki jindai kuketsu” published in 1367, “Taiseikyō”) have never actually showed the alphabets to their readers or even discussed such alphabets from a language perspective.
Instead they seem to use the jindai moji as an argument to support the rather nativist agenda that their books have.
There is also another aspect to jindai moji. The word “jindai” refers to the Shinto idea, that there has once been a “divine age of Gods” in Japan. Many of those who have written books on jindai moji have taken a religious approach to the topic. To be completely fair having both a religious and a rather nativist approach at the same time is probably common among such authors.
One of the great difficulties that come with studying jindai moji is that it can be very hard to separate this topic from many others. The discussion around jindai moji usually involves the Sun Goddess Amaterasu Ōmikami, ancient Japanese prince Shōtoku Taishi, famous Japanese scholar Kūkai, Chinese characters, Siddham, ancient Japanese poetry, Buddhism and
Confucianism. Some authors have managed to connect jindai moji to almost all of those topics at the same time and some of them have managed to do that in a way that in my personal opinion would be rather unacceptable to a contemporary reader.
It seems to me that it is almost impossible to study jindai moji separately from all of the aforementioned religious and political topics. That of course makes it much more difficult to focus on studying jindai moji from the linguistic perspective. Also very few of those who study the history of the Japanese language mention jindai moji in their works which makes the academical research of the topic even more challenging.
However the position of jindai moji in all these debates is exactly what makes it worthwhile studying. It is not just the letters themselves that are interesting but it is their place in debates about Japan, the “Age of the Gods”, Buddhism, Shinto, and nativism that makes them worthwhile to study.
13 A significant number of works on jindai moji (for example “Taiseikyō, “Iroha monben”,
“Hotsuma tsutae”, “Kanna hifumi den” by Hirata Atsutane, “Letters from heavenly kingdom”
by Yoshizawa Uzen) was written during the Tokugawa period in Japan. Therefore I decided that in my master thesis I am going to focus on the works from the Tokugawa period (1603- 1863).
It is difficult to know if authors of the works on jindai moji that I am going to cite agreed on what exactly “jindai moji” means. There is a possibility that by “jindai moji” they all meant different things. I do however find it unlikely. And, even if this is the case, most of those authors seem to talk more or less about the same thing. The reason why I think that is because it is often quite obvious that they have read each other’s works. In my master thesis I want to take a close look at these scholars and their works, as well as compare them to each other.
By doing that it might be possible to find the reason why so many scholars were interested in the topic of jindai moji exactly in the Tokugawa period as well as what kind of significance that topic might have had in the Tokugawa period. I hope to be able to make an objective approach to the topic and take a close look at the actual alphabets the scholars of the Tokugawa period were able to find.
As I have mentioned before, the theory that claims that there has once existed an authentically Japanese alphabet is very interesting if one is to study the history of the Japanese language. However it is important to mention that the alphabets are likely all Tokugawa-period creations and can tell us nothing about early Japanese language. The reason why they are interested to study for the scholar of Japanese language is because these are the new ways to write Japanese language that were (likely) developed during the Tokugawa period. The alphabets are, as I have also already mentioned, fairly different from each other in their form. Some of them can fairly easily be used to write present day Japanese.
However the approaches that the Tokugawa period scholars used were rather religious as many of those scholars have claimed that the alphabets were used by the Shinto Gods. One can easily start wondering if many of the scholars had some agenda to their research.
When I first started to write my master thesis I soon discovered that what I was writing did not make much sense unless I included long passages about the Japanese history and society of the time when a certain book on jindai moji was published. Many of those books do not focus on jindai moji, they only mention it in relation to other topics so I had to include some general information on those other topics as well.
I decided to take a risk of not excluding my somewhat long passages on Japanese history from my master thesis if such passages seemed necessary in order for me to be able to discuss the connection between jindai moji and other history related topics. Because I am
14 writing about Tokugawa Japan and not contemporary Japan, several topics that I am going to talk about in my master thesis may be somewhat unfamiliar to some readers.
This master thesis is divided into eight chapters. In the second chapter I am going to briefly discuss works on jindai moji that were written in 14th century and then in later chapters I am going to discuss works on jindai moji that were published in Japan during the Tokugawa period. I am going to discuss the similarities and differences between those works.
Almost every single work on jindai moji published during the Edo period (that I was able to find) seems to use jindai moji as a supporting argument for some kind of agenda. Those agendas however are not only different depending on which book we are analysing but one can also see an interesting development where books on Jindai moji that were written in early Tokugawa period (for example “Taiseikyō” and “Iroha Monben”) have one type of agenda while those written in late Edo period (“Hotsuma Tsutae”, “Kanna hifumi den”) tend to have a different more nativist agenda to them.
I was able to find an article on jindai moji (“Akiru jinja. Shinji uta kaiseki hōkoku” by Suzuki Toshiyuki) that was published relatively recently. The article refers to a book on jindai moji that was originally published during the Tokugawa period. The main point of the article is that in the city of Akiruno (near Tokyo) there is an ancient shrine called Akiru Jinja. According to the article the document written in jindai moji is stored inside of this shrine. To find out if what the author of the article is saying is true I took a trip to the city of Akiruno. The first part of my master thesis includes anonymous interviews about jindai moji with citizens of Akiruno.
In the chapter 4 of my master thesis I discuss the history of the Japanese language and what kind of writing systems were used to write the Japanese language during the different periods in Japanese history. Also I discuss how the theory about jindai moji fits or does not fit into the general history of Japanese language (as it is seen by present day Japanese Academia). In chapter 9 I take a closer look at all jindai moji alphabets that I was able to find and take the liberty of comparing them to each other. Also I offer some linguistic evidence that supports the opinion that the majority of the alphabets that different scholars were able to find during the Tokugawa period could not have existed before 660 B.C.
Before I proceed I believe that it is necessary to take a closer look at how several contemporary Japanese dictionaries and encyclopaedias define terms “jindai moji” and
“jindai”. I have already listed several different meanings the term jindai moji can have, but those were based on my own understanding that is again based on the works on jindai moji that I happened to have read.
I believe that it is also necessary to discuss several official definitions of the terms “jindai moji” and “jindai”. I would like to start with the official definitions of term “jindai moji”.
Nihon kokugo daijiten (2005) explains the term “jindai moji” as follows:
15 The letters that are said to have been used in our country before the Chinese characters were brought to Japan (Nihon kokugo daijiten 2005, “Kamiyō moji” entry).
Dejitaru daijisen, (2001) explains the term “jindai moji” as follows:
The letters that are said to have been used in Japan in ancient times, before the Chinese characters were brought to Japan. There are several different types of jindai moji such as the Hifumi alphabet, the Anaichi alphabet and the Ahiru alphabet.
In old times many of those who preach Shinto believed that such letters had once existed but currently all of the aforementioned alphabets are considered to be contemporary creations because of the fact that those alphabets consist of phonograms.
In the Edo period several works published on the topic have caused controversy. Among those works are Hirata Atsutane’s «Shinji hifumi den» and Ban Nobutomo’s «Kana no moto sue» (Dejitaru daijisen, 2001, “jindai moji” entry).
Nihon kokugo daijiten (2003) explains term “jindai moji” as follows:
The letters that are said to have been used in our country before the arrival of Chinese characters. There are three different types of jindai moji: Hifumi alphabet, Anaichi alphabet and Ahiru alphabet. There are no reliable ancient sources that can prove that such letters have ever existed. All of the aforementioned alphabets seem to be based on Iroha. There are several different books published on this topic including Hirata Atsutane’s “Shinji hifumi den”
that supports the “jindai moji theory” or “Kana no moto sue” by Ban Noritomo.
Jindai moji is also called shinji (神字) and jindaiji (神代字)
This information is based on “Kokugo no tame” that was published in 1895 and on “Fushin chū” that was published in 1910. (Nihon kokugo daijiten 2003, “Jindai moji” entry)
Finally Kokushi daijiten (1979) defines the term “jindai moji” as follows:
Unique letters that are claimed to have existed in ancient times and were used to write the Japanese language. Sometimes those letters are also called “kamiyō moji”. No scholars have yet been able to confirm that such letters have actually existed in ancient Japan. So far scholars have been able to find some drawings that resemble letters in certain caves across Japan. It has been claimed that those drawings are jindai moji. However, if such letters really were used by Japanese people, there should be some evidence of such use, for example in ancient official documents. If should also be clear that such documents are written in the ancient Japanese language. Therefore the language in such documents should be somewhat similar to the language in which the known ancient Japanese sources (for example Kojiki) are written. Currently there is no reliable evidence of any authentically Japanese ancient
symbols that were used to write the ancient Japanese language. Works such as «Kogo Shūi»,
«Kakumei kanmon» by Miyoshi Kiyoyuki, «Hakizakigūki» by Ōeno Masafusa, «Nihonshoki
16 sanso» by Ichijou Kanera either state that there were no authentically Japanese letters in ancient Japan (Joko period) or state that kana is an authentically Japanese alphabet that did not derive from Chinese characters but was created as something authentically Japanese and unrelated to Chinese characters. For example «Shaku nihongi» written by Urabe
Kanekata states that kana was used in Japan before the Chinese characters. It is possible that Shaku Nihongi has influenced scholars such as Hirata Atsutane and Ban Noritomo to publish their controversial works on jindai moji in the Edo period. Hirata Atsutane’s claim, that letters he calls “Hifumi script” existed in ancient Japan, is currently not supported by Japanese Academia. It is also worth noting that the Hifumi script is somewhat similar to Hangul. The contemporary scholar Yamada Yoshio has published the work “Iwayuru Jindai moji no ron” in which he denied the existence of jindai moji and stated that no sample material provided by other scholars can confirm the fact that jindai moji existed in ancient Japan (Kokushi daijiten, 1979, “jindai moji” entry).
Now after I have presented several official definitions of the term “jindai moji” I would like to present two official definitions of the term “jindai”. Official definitions of the term “jindai”
are arguably less important for this master thesis than the official definition of the term
“jindai moji” but I have decided to include those anyway.
Nihon kokugo daijiten (2005) explains term “jindai” as follows:
“Person who is being possessed by a God during the religious festival. This information is based on an essay written by Karahizu Ihitsu around 1750. (Nihon kokugo daijiten 2005,
“jindai” entry)
Otherwise the term “jindai” could mean:
The era when Japan was ruled by Gods. Usually refers to the time before the reign of Emperor Jinmu. This term and «in old times» are sometimes used interchangeably. (Nihon kokugo daijiten 2005, “jindai” entry)
Dejitaru daijisen (2001) explains term “Jindai” as follows:
1. The era before humans when Gods ruled the world. It usually refers to times before the emperor Jinmu. This information is based on Hitachi Fudoki (written around 717-724), Man’yōshu (8th century), Kokin wakashū (around 905-914), Makura no sōshi (around 10th century), Nippo Jijō (1603-1604).
2. Refers to a period that was ruled by a certain God. This term can also be used
interchangeably with «long ago». This information is based on Genji monogatari, Masu kagami (1368-76).
As we can see the term “jindai” has several different meanings including “a possessed person”, “long ago” and “a time that was ruled by a certain God”. It is difficult to say which one of those meanings would fit best when it comes to the translation of term “jindai moji”.
17 One can chose to translate jindai moji as “letters that were used in Japan in old times” but one can also chose to translate it as “letters that were used by Japanese Gods”. I would argue that most scholars who have published works on jindai moji during the Tokugawa period would probably explain jindai moji as “letters that were first used by Japanese Gods, then by Japanese people”. (Dejitaru daijisen, 2001, “jindai” entry)
Now I would like to conclude my Introduction chapter with a short summary of this chapter.
The term “jindai moji” can mean several different things. But first of all it is a term for an ancient authentically Japanese alphabet that allegedly was used in Japan before the arrival of Chinese characters. In this master thesis I am going to focus on works on jindai moji that were written by several scholars during the Tokugawa period.
Studying jindai moji can be difficult since many of those scholars, in my own personal opinion, use theories around jindai moji as a supportive argument for their nativist or religious theories rather than discuss jindai moji from a language perspective. However this is one of the reasons for why it is interesting to study jindai moji.
This master thesis is divided into ten parts. In the first six chapters I am going to name all of the main works on jindai moji that were published during the Tokugawa period in Japan. I am also going to talk about the Tokugawa period in general. In chapter 9 I am going to discuss jindai moji from the language perspective and present all types of jindai moji that I was able to find.
Also in this master thesis I will try to answer the following questions:
1. What are the main pre-Meiji works that claim that jindai moji existed? What exactly do they say about jindai moji?
2. Do they present jindai moji alphabets? If so, what kind of alphabets are those?
3. What did the creators of jindai moji discourses or alphabets want to say? What did they want the jindai moji they «found» to prove?
My main research question is: Why did the discours about jindai moji appear during the Tokugawa period?
The fact that so many Tokugawa period scholars who have published works on jindai moji have likely had agendas to their research might be one of the reasons why the topic of jindai moji is so rarely discussed by present day Japanese Academia. I would not like to note that by saying that I do not assume that the jindai moji has likely existed, nor do I try to criticize the scholars for their approach.
However I would like to claim that the topic possibly deserves more attention.
18 I would like to one more time thank my supervisor Mark Teeuwen. Without his great help it would have been impossible for me to write this master thesis. Also Professor Teeuwen was the one who introduced me to jindai moji. Unfortunately I do not have a background in Japanese religion, but I do hope that in my master thesis I will be able to do the topic justice.
From now on I would like to take a look at the likely reason for why the discource around the jindai moji appeared during the Tokugawa period.
As I have said earlier, the discourse about Jindai moji first appeared during the 14th century in Japan. However it disappeared and then reappeared only a few centuries later, in
Tokugawa Japan.
Japan has a long literary tradition of nostalgic writings. Even before the Tokugawa period Kakinomoto Hitomaro expressed a nostalgic attitude towards the times when Man’yoshu (Japan’s oldest poetry anthology) was written. He expressed concern for the loss of country elegance identified with earlier times. (Nosco, 1990, p.6). During the medieval period of Japanese history (1185-1600) a longing for the past, and attributing to it desirable qualities that happened to be lost in one’s own time, became a literary conceit.
The Kojiki and the Nihon shoki both include “Divine age chapters” which describe how Japan was created in ancient times. During the 18th century several Japanese scholars engaged in studying the Kojiki, the Nihon shoki and several other ancient sources. They concluded that the earliest ages in Japanese history were far better than their own time. Given the long existing Japanese tradition of nostalgic writings – this is not at all surprising. Those scholars depicted the early ages in Japan in an idealised fashion and explained the loss of the ancient Japanese beauty in their own times with the introduction of foreign modes of thought into Japan. (Nosco, 1990, p.8).
They claimed that Confucianism was inferior to the “Way of Japan”. According to them Chinese people were naturally disobedient and inclined towards wrongdoing. A Japanese person, however, possessed the so called “true heart” at birth. The “true heart” of a Japanese person was however spoiled by the Chinese way of thinking, as Japanese people were exposed to unnecessary Chinese influence. But that was reversible. A Japanese person could “restore” their “true heart” if they reunited themselves with the native “Way of Japan”.
Their views were of course rather xenophobic as they went as far as to claim that the glories of ancient Japan were purely and exclusively Japanese. Hirata Atsutane, who wrote a work on jindai moji, was one of those scholars.
Tokugawa society saw the increase of literacy and the development of communication technology. Several 18th century scholars recruited private students. Kokugaku or National learning, in many ways a reaction against Confucianism, was a popular movement. Several kokugakusha recruited students as well as other scholars. These scholars claimed that information about the so called ancient “Way of Japan” could be recovered from ancient
19 texts through application of, for example, linguistic or historical analysis. For those scholars, the ancient time of Japan was an ideal age and the ancient people were an example of Japanese people of high morals. This was all because they were free from foreign influence.
Seventeen century poetics in Japan featured the revival of interests toward waka, traditional Japanese poetry. Contemporary ways of creating poetry were refreshened by adding ancient style waka elements. Creating poetry became far more popular in seventeen century Japan than it had been in previous times (Nosco, 1990, p.236).
Shinto studies during the seventeenth century attempted to update Shinto theology with neo-confucian vocabulary. However, in the eighteenth century Shinto scholars joined the quest for a native ancient “Way of Japan”. The Tokugawa period in Japan was a fertile time for nativism. (Noisco, 1990)
Kokugaku scholars asked questions such as “What is “Japan”?”, “How did Japan emerge?”,
“What binds Japanese people together?”. In order to answer these questions, many of them used analyses of ancient texts. Nativism in the Tokugawa period was centred on the issues of language. The ancient texts were for the nativist Kokugaku scholars a source of individual identity (Burns, 2003, p.2).
Before the Tokugawa period, the Japanese people mostly had other sources of identity such as status, occupation, village, religion etc. During the Tokugawa period however “Japan”
itself become to be constituted as the primary mode of community (Burns, 2003, p.2). The second half of the Tokugawa period saw economic transformations, multiple peasant riots, and unrest. The social divisions that I talk about in chapter 3, “The depiction of Tokugawa Japan. Taiseikyō”, became difficult to maintain.
Susan L. Burns argues that the Kokugaku movement was “not an exercise in antiquarianism, nor an expression of nostalgia, but a moment of social formation in which one set of
representations, one “imaginary” community was beginning to fail and another was taking form”. (Burns, 2003, p.3) It is however important to remember that nostalgic practise was somewhat traditional for the literature of the time. The word view that attributed a status of
“ideal time” to a certain moment in past was also quite familiar to Japanese people of the time because of Confucianism.
However it is hard to argue that Tokugawa Japan experienced something close to a crisis of a community, and Kokugaku scholars as well as several pre-Kokugaku scholars, for example Keichu, whom I mention in “Chapter 5.Hotsuma tsutae” sought to find an answer to the question “What is Japan?”.
Several of those scholars either compared Japan to China, or, as I have mentioned earlier, blamed the crisis of the community in contemporary Japan on Chinese influence that had spoiled the society. Not only was Chinese culture and Confucianism (and sometimes also Buddhism) criticized in this particular way, but nativist scholars in Tokugawa Japan also
20 criticized the Chinese language. One such scholar called Kamo-no-mabuchi (1697-1769) had written a text called Goikō where he expressed his opinion of why the Japanese language is superior to the Chinese language.
Surely Tokugawa scholars had different approaches to the ancient Japanese language.
Norinaga argued that Kojiki itself describes the times when Japan was a harmonious society, where there was need for laws and institution, and if Kojiki is read correctly, character by character, it reveals the “recipe” for this kind of society. For Kamo-no-mabuchi, who lived earlier then Norinaga, the Japanese language itself was a manifestation of the pure hearts that all Japanese people possessed. Ancient Japanese society was harmonious, so a writing system was not needed. I believe that jindai moji happens to be an example of yet a different approach to the ancient Japanese language. While some scholars believed in the phonetical analysis of ancient texts and others claimed that the ancient Japanese language did not need a writing system because it was superior to other languages, people like Tainin (more on him in chapter 4) and Hirata Atsutane argued that ancient Japanese society indeed had its own writing system that is now lost.
It is interesting that several Tokugawa period scholars felt the need to discuss the situation with the usage of Chinese characters in Japan. Surely at this point Japan already had its own alphabets, Hiragana and Katakana. Those however were originally based on Chinese
characters. Perhaps scholars of the Tokugawa period felt such a need to distance themselves from “malicious Chinese influence” represented by Chinese characters, that they went as far as to actually create a completely new alphabet and then claim that this alphabet belongs to an ancient Japanese society.
Therefore jindai moji is an interesting lens through which one can study discourses about Japan and its relation to Chinese culture in the Tokugawa period.
So, what did the creators of Jindai moji discourses or alphabets want to say? What did they want the jindai moji they «found» to prove? It seems that they tried to distance themselves from Chinese culture and Chinese influence. Jindai moji would prove that Japan once had not only a pure and beautiful authentically Japanese culture, but also its own alphabets and therefore did not need Confucianism, the Chinese world view or the Chinese characters. In the times when the entire idea of National learning (Kokugaku) was viewed in opposition to Chinese learning, it’s understandable why certain scholars tried to find or even create an authentic Japanese alphabet. Also, the “Divine age of Gods” chapters in both Kojiki and Nihon shoki were important to many Kokugaku scholars. Surely even a few not exactly trustworthy sources that claimed that an ancient, authentically Japanese alphabet once had existed would have been of interest in times like these.
It is important to note that nativist discourse in Tokugawa Japan was perhaps a predecessor of post-Tokugawa discourse of the Japanese nation. Kokugaku and other nativist scholars did to a degree inspire the emergence of Japanese national consciousness (Burns, 2003, p.5).
21 Jindai moji however remained somewhat obscure and did not have much influence on the post-Tokugawa nation related discourses.
Chapter 2 “Jindai moji before the Tokugawa period”
Introduction
Many works on jindai moji written during the Tokugawa period (for example “Taiseikyō”,
“Iroha Monben” and “Kanna hifumi den”) mention Shōtoku Taishi, a real political figure who lived in 6th century Japan. What exactly those works say about Shōtoku Taishi varies.
However most of those works state that Shōtoku Taishi is related to jindai moji. Therefore I think that it is important for me to talk about who Shōtoku Taishi was before I start talking about jindai moji. Therefore in this short chapter I am briefly going to talk about Shōtoku Taishi. In this chapter I am also briefly going to talk about another person called Kūkai or Kōbo Daishi. Kūkai is also mentioned in some works on jindai moji. In this chapter I am only going to present Kūkai very briefly. I am going to talk more about Kūkai in chapter 4 (“Iroha monben”).
I am also going to present some of the early works on jindai moji that were written before the Tokugawa period. There are two early works on jindai moji that I am aware of which had been written during the 14th century. I find it to be an interesting coincidence that those works were written in 14th century. It is of course very interesting to find out why works on jindai moji appeared for the first time in 14th century Japan. However this chapter, as well as the second one, doesn’t contain much analysis. In these chapters I am mostly going to
present events and historical figures as well as describe the historical landscape on a basic level. I believe that I need to do so before I can present the topic on a little more advanced level.
Main part
The whole theory about jindai moji is built around alternative understanding of the history of Japanese written language. The usual “canon” understanding of the history of Japanese written language is as follows. In 593 A.D. the Japanese empress Suiko appointed her nephew as regent. This nephew’s name was Prince Shōtoku. Prince Shōtoku or Shōtoku Taishi as he is often called made a great effort to establish a stable government.
Shōtoku taishi's is the person who edited the Imperial annals. Later commentators thought that Shōtoku Taishi must have had written materials dating from before the the introduction of writing systems in Japan.
22 Sangōsho is written in Chinese characters. That is also true for other documents produced under Shōtoku’s reign. It is in fact unknown when Chinese characters came to Japan but some assume that it happened during the 5th century. (Como, 2006)
Under the reign of Empress Suiko/Prince Shōtoku the Japanese court sent several diplomatic missions to China. That is said to have resulted in the increase of the number of Japanese people who could write Chinese characters. (Como, 2006)
Approximately one century later there lived a Japanese Buddhist monk and scholar called Kūkai (also called Kōbo Daishi) who is sometimes praised for the creation of a Japanese syllabary – the kana. Until this day the kana and Chinese characters are used in combination to write the Japanese language. It is of course worth mentioning that the syllabary that Kobo Daishi has created is not the hiragana or katakana alphabet that Japanese people use today but I am not going to talk about that in detail in this chapter. For a long time it has also been assumed that Kūkai authored a poem called Iroha, which contains each kana syllable exactly once and is used as an ordering of the kana syllabary. However contemporary research has proved that Kūkai most likely was not the person who wrote the Iroha poem. (Abe, 1999) During his lifetime Kūkai visited China where he was introduced to the Siddham script. The Siddham script is an abugida (a writing system in which every unit is based on consonant letter) that was used in India to write Sanskrit at the time. There are some obvious similarities between the Siddham script and the Kana syllabary.
Traditionally it is assumed that before the Chinese characters came to Japan, Japan did not have its own writing system.
However this belief was questioned in 1301 by Urabe Kanekata in his work called “Shaku Nihongi”. Urabe Kanekata claimed that Iroha might have been a re-editing of ancient Japanese characters that apparently were used in Japan before the Chinese characters. He believed that Kūkai was the one who had re-edited the poem. Urabe Kanekata’s claim was supported by Inbe no Masamichi. (Morrow, 2014)
Inbe no Masamichi’s work called “Nihon shoki jindai kuketsu” was authored in 1367. In his work Inbe no Masamishi claimed that Japan had its own ancient characters until the time of Shōtoku Taishi. Masamichi claimed that Shōtoku Taishi was the one who replaced the ancient Japanese script with Chinese characters. Before Shōtoku Taishi, Masamichi claimed, the ancient Japanese characters and Chinese characters were used in combination. (Morrow, 2014)
The main argument for Urabe Kanekata was the ancient Japanese practise of scapulimansy.
Scapulimancy stands for a “reading the future” practise that was performed by throwing the shoulder bone of a deer into a fire and then has a specialist “read” the results. (Morrow, 2014)
23 Kanekata claimed that ancient Japanese people must have used some type of characters to write down the results. Kanekata also writes that the Japanese Shinto Gods themselves did perform scapulimancy and were likely to write the results with the ancient Japanese script.
That is also stated in the Nihon Shoki itself so Kanekata definitely was not the first person to claim that.
At this point we can already see how the discourse about the ancient Japanese alphabet has a very interesting religious side to it.
Urabe Kanekata and Inbe no Masamichi were the first scholars to mention the ancient Japanese alphabet. They are yet to use the term jindai moji. However they were followed by multiple scholars of the Tokugawa period, many of whom have presented the scripts that could have been the ancient script that was used in Japan before the Chinese characters.
Many of these scholars were also fairly religious and some of them were nativists. (Morrow, 2014)
As we can see both “Shaku Nihongi” (1301) and “Nihon shoki jindai kuketsu” (1367) were been written during the 14th century. The 14th century in Japanese history is traditionally divided into three periods. The beginning is considered to be a part of the Kamakura period (1185-1333) and the rest is the so called Kenmu Restoration (1333-1336) followed by the Muromachi period (from 1336 to 1573).
As we can see the wind of change was blowing through 14th century Japan. I find it very interesting that both “Shaku Nihongi” and “Nihon shoki jindai kuketsu” were written exactly in the fourteen century. It becomes even more interesting if one takes into consideration the fact that the next significant work that mentions jindai moji was published in the 17th
century (Tokugawa period).
I decided to take a look at events that took place in 14th century Japan. I decided to do so because it might be interesting to compare them to the Tokugawa period. I wonder if it will be possible to find out why did the interest for jindai moji first appeared in 14th century Japan, then disappeared for 300 years and then appeared again in the Tokugawa period.
The Kamakura period started with a very significant change in Japan’s political system. In 1192 a man called Yoritomo Minamoto became «Sei-i-tai-shōgun». He was then a head of a new military government – «the Kamakura shogunate». Before the creation of the
shogunate ruling emperors, empresses and their regents had been the most politically powerful figures in Japan.
However after the creation of the shogunate, the court was not that powerful anymore.
Although the imperial family and the court still existed in the city of Kyoto the shogun became de facto the most powerful political person in the country. The shoguns residence was at the time located in Kamakura; therefore the period received the name “Kamakura period”.
24 During the Kamakura period a new type of literature appeared in Japan. It was called
“Godzan Bungaku” (or “Literature of the five mountains”). Godzan Bungaku was created inside powerful Japanese Buddhist monasteries and was greatly influenced by Buddhism in general. Its name “Literature of the five mountains” most likely reflects the fact that there were five main Buddhist monasteries in Japan at the time. (Kabanov, 1985)
Godzan Bungaku includes both poetry and prose. Many of the literary works classified as Godzan Bungaku have been directly influenced by Chinese literature of the time and, most importantly, the majority of Godzan Bungaku is written in classical Chinese.
Early Godzan Bungaku poetry is focused on the so called «satori». “Satori” is a Japanese Buddhist term that can be translated as “seeing into one’s true nature”. Some scholars argue that one can also see the “wabi”, “sabi” and “yugen” aesthetics expressed in some Godzan Bungaku works. (Kabanov, 1985)
Some of the most well-known Godzan Bundaku poets such as Soseki Muso (1275-1351) and Yubai Sesson (1290-1346) lived the greater part of their lives in the 14th century. As we can see, the discussion around jindai moji in the 14th century appeared at the time when Godzan Bungaku literature flourished.
At the time the Japanese language itself was written in several different ways. There was no single way to write Japanese. Also I believe that it is possible to talk about the “overuse” of the Chinese language in the Japanese literature of the time. I dare say that the discussion around the “true Japanese script” in the 14th century could have started for those reasons.
Also, topics with a certain nativist agenda to them are more likely to appear when the group’s (in this case nation’s) identity is threatened, which might have also been the case in 14th century Japan. Both “Shaku Nihongi” written in 1301 and “Nihon shoki jindai kuketsu”
written in 1367 focused on Shinto and not that much on Buddhism. That is important because Shinto is considered an authentically Japanese religion.
In 1333 political change happened once again. Emperor Go-Daigo attempted to rule without the influence of the shogunate. After three years he had absolute power and then he was replaced and forced to flee while the new Ashikaga shogunate was established in
Muramachi. That was the start of the Muramachi period that lasted until 1573.
Emperor Go-Daigo did not give up and until 1392 Japan practically had two courts – one supported by the Ashikaga shogunate and one that was created by the emperor Go-Daigo in Yoshino after he had to flee. However, to put it in simple words, the Ashikaga shogunate won. Neither the Kamakura nor the Muromachi period in Japan had been particularly stable for Japan. But both saw the flourishing of the arts. The famous Golden temple was built in Kyoto in 1397. The discussion around the jindai moji after it appeared in the 14th century for a brief period of time soon disappeared again.
25 The development of Buddhist schools of Shinto in this period possibly also has influenced the jindai moji discource. These are largely Tendai and Shingon schools in the time. Tendai and Shingon schools argue that the native kami represent “original enlightenment” in raw form, and are therefore superior to the Buddhas who represent “acquired enlightenment”. (Breen and Teeuwen, 2010)
Conclusion
In this chapter I have briefly presented some historical figures such as Prince Shōtoku Taishi and the Buddhist monk and scholar Kūkai. Two early works on jindai moji were manuscripts for internal use written during the 14th century and one of them mentions Shōtoku Taishi.
The manuscript claims that Shōtoku Taishi had replaced an authentic Japanese alphabet with the Chinese script. Shōtoku Taishi is going to be mentioned in the same way in several later works on jindai moji. Another 14th century work on jindai moji mentions that the poem Iroha (allegedly created by Kūkai) was a re-editing on ancient authentically Japanese characters. In other words Kūkai had originally written the poem with an authentically Japanese alphabet (jindai moji). In Chapter 4, I am going to take a close look at a work on jindai moji that mostly talks about how Kūkai allegedly wrote the Iroha poem with jindai moji.
It seems that the discourse around jindai moji appeared for the first time in the 14th century, a difficult time for Japan as it was, among other things, a very politically unstable time. The 14th century saw the flourishing of a type of literature called Godzan Bungaku that was written in Chinese. Japan did not have a single writing system at the time and the Japanese language had been written in several different ways. Apart from the absence of a single way to write Japanese, there has clearly been an overuse of the Chinese language in poetry as Japanese poets were writing in Chinese. Those, along with the fact that nation’s identity was somewhat threatened, could have been reasons for the fact that the discourse about jindai moji for the first time appeared in 14th century Japan.
.
Chapter 3: “Description of Tokugawa Japan. Taiseikyō”
Introduction
As I have said earlier for my master thesis I decided to focus on some of the works on jindai moji that were published during the Tokugawa period. I do not think it would be possible for me to analyse those works without first taking a look at the society of the Tokugawa period.
That is because I believe that many of those works include information that can only be understood in the context of their time. Also the majority of works I am going to analyse in my master thesis do not focus on jindai moji directly. They focus mostly on other subjects.
26 Such subjects often involve religion. Therefore I also find it necessary to take a brief look at the main religions of the Tokugawa period. Although jindai moji does (I believe) classify as a language related topic it seems that jindai moji has many times been used as an supporting argument for one or another opinion the author has, where those opinions are not
necessarily very language related (as I have already stated in my Introduction chapter).
I would like to start with a general description of the Tokugawa period as I believe it is necessary as mentioned above. First I am going to present some basic information on how the Tokugawa period started, what kind of relationship the Tokugawa shoguns ha d with the imperial family and some general information about the city of Edo. Later I am going to briefly talk about daimyo during the Tokugawa period. Then I am also going to briefly talk about roads and freedom of movement in Tokugawa Japan. Later I am also briefly going to mention the different classes of Tokugawa society as well as talk a little bit about the
outcasts. Historically there are different ways to look at the Tokugawa period and I am going to talk about that too. Then I am also going to present a new type of village community – the mura.
After that I am briefly going to present different types of schools where people who lived in Tokugawa period Japan could learn to read and write. Confucianism was an extraordinarily important ideology during the Tokugawa period and Confucian classics were learned at schools at the time. Therefore in this chapter I am going to talk about Confucianism during the Tokugawa period. Then I am going to briefly talk about Christianity, Judaism and Islam in Tokugawa Japan.
Much like the previous chapter this chapter is meant to be a somewhat introductionary chapter where I talk about the historical landscape in general. This chapter is not going to contain much analysis. I believe that it is necessary for me to present the Tokugawa period historical landscape on a basic level before I can go into a more advanced level.
Finally in this chapter I am going to talk about the first work on jindai moji that was published during the Tokugawa period. It is called Sendai Kuji Hongi Taiseikyō. Sendai Kuji Hongi Taiseikyō does not provide much information on jindai moji; it only mentions jindai moji very briefly. However, I believe that Sendai Kuji Hongi Taiseikyō has much in common with later texts on jindai moji.
Main part
The Tokugawa period started in 1603 with the unification of Japan by Nobunaga Oda and Hideyoshi Toyotomi and the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate. The first Tokugawa shogun – Tokugawa Ieyasu originally was Oda and Toyotomi’s ally. However after
Hideyoshi’s death he seized the power from Hideyoshi’s son Hideyori and became the first Tokugawa shogun. The Tokugawa period is named after the Tokugawa shogunate. It is also
27 not unusual to call this period the “Edo period”, which lasted for approximately two hundred and fifty years.
The Tokugawa period was a relatively peaceful period in Japanese history as the conflict between Hideyori and Ieyasu Tokugawa was the only military conflict that happened during that time, with the exception of the Christian rebellion that happened in 1637-1638 (more on the rebellion later in this chapter).
During the Tokugawa period Kyoto was the official capital of Japan. However, the Tokugawa shogunate’s headquarters were placed in another city called Edo. During the 15th century Edo was still a relatively small fishing village located in Eastern Japan. However, after the Tokugawa headquarters were placed there, the city of Edo experienced rapid growth that resulted in its becoming possibly the largest metropolis in the world by 1721 (Holcombe, 2011, p.185). I suppose one can say that at that point Edo had already become de facto the capital of Japan.
The emperors of Japan remained fairly powerless and the country was ruled by the shoguns.
There have in fact been a few marriages between members of the Tokugawa family and the imperial family. In 1620 a granddaughter of shogun Hidataga Tokugawa married emperor Gomidzunō. Their daughter Meisho became an empress. She was the first female emperor in Japan since the 8th century. Shogun Iemochi Tokugawa was married with a princess called Kadzunomiya (Mescheryakov, 2012, p.27).
Before its unification, Japan was divided into more than one hundred independent
territories each ruled by a daimyō (landowner). Each of these territories, while being a part of Japan, was in a sense an independent country. After the unification of Japan, a new way to control the daimyōs was developed. All daimyōs were now required to spend much of their time in Edo. That way daimyōs became more oriented towards the shogun and that also made daimyōs use some of their resources as they now had to maintain two expensive establishments – one in Edo and one in their own province (Holcombe, 2010, p.180). While the daimyōs had to spend approximately half of the year in Edo, but then could return to their provinces, the retainers of the shogun were restricted in their travel. In order for such a person to travel more than ten miles from the city of Edo, a special official permission was required (Holcombe, 2010, p.180).
Ordinary citizens did not possess the right to free travel either. During the Tokugawa period it would be rather difficult for anyone to travel from their home district to another district, as one would need an official permission to do that (Mescheryakov, 2012, p.35).
During the Edo period the network of roads in Japan was developing rather rapidly. Some scholars such as Holcombe suggest that this development was likely a consequence of daimyōs regular travels from their district to Edo and back again. (Holcombe, 2010, p.184).
28 By the end of the Edo period there were more than two hundred daimyōs in Japan
(Holcombe, 2010, p.184).
During the Tokugawa period the samurai class had elite status. Also the samurai status has now become hereditary (Holcombe, 2010, p.188). The samurai had constituted around seven percent of the population and possessed an honorary right to have a family name. For merchants, artisans and peasants having a family name was not allowed.
The Tokugawa society was divided into four large groups. This social order was called shinōkōshō. The first group would be samurai and daimyō, they were the most privileged group of the four. The next group were peasants, the third group were artisans and the fourth and the least privileged group were merchants. It was impossible for an individual to move from one group to another. Even the entertainment industry was divided so that members of one group could not attend entertainment that was meant for another group.
Samurai, for example, were prohibited from attending kabuki as kabuki was for the lower classes only (Holcombe, 2010, p.188).
Priests and court nobles were outside of this system. So were professional actors, musicians and other artists (Duus, 1998 p.21).
Another group that was outside of the system were the outcasts, for example burakumin.
Burakumin was the name for people working with animal slaughter and leather production.
Such outcast groups experienced fairly noticeable discrimination (Duus, 1998, p.21).
In 1635 the Tokugawa shogunate banned foreign travel to Japan (Holcombe, 2010, p.183).
The country had then become a sakoku (“a closed country”). Outside influences were certainly not welcomed by the Tokugawa shogunate.
There are different ways to look at Tokugawa society. Historically many scholars have argued that the Tokugawa shogunate made a very successful attempt to “freeze society” from developing and that the Tokugawa system of control was “retrogressive” (Hall, 1974, p.3).
In the beginning of the 20th century several scholars have argued that the Tokugawa
shogunate was responsible for the “refeodilisation” (going back to the feudal system) of the country” (Hall, 1974, p.4). According to this view, at the time the Tokugawa shogunate rose to power, there were some anti-feudalist tendencies in Japan. Such tendencies were represented by the fact that Hideyoshi Toyotomi himself was able to rise from a relatively humble origin to an extraordinary high place in that society. Such a rise would no longer be possible in Tokugawa Japan.
On the contrary some scholars have argued that Japan never actually was a feudal society until the Tokugawa period and have called the politics of the Tokugawa period “revolution into feudalism” (Hall, 1974, p.5).
29 Also during the Tokugawa period a new type of village community developed – the mura.
The Tokugawa government had in many ways moved samurais and daimyōs “off the land”
and therefore peasants that previously were the cultivating families attached directly to the military heads now did not experience as much direct personal control. They were now controlled by the government (Hall, 1974, p.6). According to Araki peasants did experience some sort of “emancipation” because of the samurai being driven off their land (Hall, 1974, p.6). It is also worth noticing that during the 16th century the population of Japan had doubled (Holcombe, 2010, p.187). John W. Hall points out that traditionally many of the Japanese scholars were most interested in the conditions of the peasantry when analysing the Tokugawa period (Hall, 1974, p.6).
In Tokugawa Japan, peasants were not prohibited from carrying weapons. John W. Hall notes that the likely reason for why such strict division between the armed samurai class and the disarmed lower social classes was needed was that muskets had been introduced to Japan during the 16th century. Muskets were used during the unification of the Japanese islands (Holcombe, 2010, p.179). The officials of Tokugawa Japan as expected did not use this argument when explaining their politics to ordinary Japanese citizens. Instead, the need for division was explained from the perspective of Confucian values which were successfully spread through education.
During the Tokugawa period it was possible for peasants, artisans and merchants to get education. That was true for both men and women (and apparently for other genders as well (such as for example han’in’yō). Peasants, artisans and merchants could not get a formal education. They could however attend schools such as hankō, terakoya, juku, shinjuku, governmental elementary schools and the Confucian academy of the shogunate (article about education p 4).
Hankō was very similar to the governmental elementary school except it was established by a certain feudal lord and not the government. Terakoya were schools run by temples. Juku and Shinjuku were the private schools often run by a private scholar. It has been argued that by attending such schools commoners could learn to read and write, as well as use the abacus (article about education p 4). Otherwise the curriculum would be different
depending on the school. However the contemporary research shows that students of such schools despite being able to write their own name and being able to read what is written in either form of kana were not able to read official documents that were written with Chinese characters (Rubinger, 1990, p. 606).
Both in the schools that peasants, artisans and merchants could attend and in the schools that were aimed at students of samurai descent, there was a focus on Classical Chinese and Neo-Confucian studies. That was especially true for the schools aimed at samurai youth. It seems that is was normal for students to study Confucian Analects at school, as well as other Confucian classics. However we do not have enough information about the significance of school attendance for a particular student. There is evidence that full literacy in Chinese was
30 expected of elites in the latter part of the 17th century (Rubinger, 1990, p. 603). Naturally they would also be expected to read kanbun-kudoku. Since all of the official documents were written in Chinese, all government officials also had to master kanbun-kudoku.
To read a Chinese text using kanbun-kudoku style was to read a Chinese text “in a Japanese manner”. The words of the original Chinese text would be transposed and reordered to fit Japanese syntax. Then, the grammatical particles and inflectional morphemes (absent in Chinese) would be added (Hmeljak-Sangawa, 2017, p.6).
It has in fact been claimed that the Tokugawa period was “the Golden age of Confucianism and interest in language and classical culture from China” (Holcombe, 2010, p.183).
For writing taxes and reports, people of the Edo period commonly used a Sino-Japanese hybrid language, also called the “kanbun-yomikudashi style writing style”. This writing style was based on the kanbun-kudoku reading technique. In the kanbun-yomikudashi style, Japanese texts were written according to Classical Chinese syntax and word order. It seems that throughout the Edo period this technique had developed and towards the end of the Edo period several authors started writing kanbun-yomikudashi style using the Japanese word order (Hmeljak-Sangawa, 2017, p.10).
This writing style was seen as one of two ways to write Japanese. The first way was generally called kanbun. Literal Japanese at the time had to master both kanbun and another writing style called wabun. Wabun was following archaic Japanese conventions of spelling and style that developed in the Heian period and was arguably more Japanese then the kambun (article page 10). However writing in the kambun style seems to have been somewhat more common (Hmeljak-Sangawa, 2017, p.10).
It is however important to mention that even though the education was accessible to
peasants, artisans and merchants of all genders, towards the end of the Edo period many of those belonging to classes below the samurai class only mastered the very basics of writing.
Also the number of literate women was largely dependent on the where they lived. It seems that while one could find some literate women in the urban areas, in rural areas the
male/female school attendance ratio was approximately 20/1 (Hmeljak-Sangawa, 2017, p.5).
These are numbers from the late Tokugawa period.
Some researchers viewed the Confucian education as something that prepared Japanese commoners for the acceptance of modern political concepts (Hall, 1974, p.3). Other claimed that these Confucian ideas were “outdated” and reactionary even in Tokugawa Japan (Hall, 1974, p.2). However there is no doubt that Confucian ideology was useful for the Tokugawa government and military elite. Confucianism suggested that there is a natural division in society by status and vocation (Hall, 1974, p.10). Therefore it justified the fact that it was extremely difficult to change from one social class to another. Loyalty to superior authority is
31 also extremely important in Confucianism. That aspect of Confucian ideology possibly helped maintain peace and stability in Tokugawa Japan.
Confucianism views religion (in this case – teachings as the word “religion” did not yet exist) as a somewhat superstitious aspect of human society. That has been used as an explanation for the fact that Tokugawa society seemed to be less religious than the people had been in previous periods of Japanese history (Mescheryakov, 2012, p.43).Yet Confucianism was very beneficial for the samurai elite who could claim that “leisure of work allows them to
cultivate the Confucian values” (Holcombe, 2010, p.183).Confucianism was not only spread through schools. In the beginning of Tokugawa period Hayashi Razan (1583-1657) held many successful lectures on his interpretations of the classical Confucian Analects (Holcombe, 2010, p.183).
One can perhaps claim that Confucianism was somehow more optimistic than for example Buddhism which views human life (and that of other species) as suffering. Such a notion is absent in Confucianism. Shinto and Buddhism still coexisted but commoners did not in fact have the freedom to choose the nearest temple but the one a citizen of Tokugawa Japan was supposed to attend. One would still be attending both a Shinto shrine and a Buddhist temple but commoners lost the freedom to choose their favourite school of Buddhism
(Mescheryakov, 2012, p.45). I will discuss the status of Buddhism and Shinto later.
The first work on Jindai moji that was published during the Tokugawa period was called Enpōhon Sendai Kuji Hongi Taiseikyō. From now on I am going to refer to it as Taiseikyō for convenience puppose. It was published in the city of Edo in 1679. Taiseikyō probably classifies as a text that claims to be a true and lost history from the divine age (Morrow, 2014, p.2). Such texts are a phenomenon in Japanese history. There are quite a few such texts and they started to appear during the Edo period. Typically those texts claim to provide the reader with unique lost information about ancient Japan. This is also true of the
Taiseikyō.
Taiseikyō was an encyclopaedia of 72 volumes. It contained information on many topics such as poetry, philosophy, national history and ritual institutions (Morrow, 2014, p.4). It was probably written and published by several people including the zen monk called Chō’on Dokai, the hermit called Ikeda, Kyōgoku Kuranosuke, Nagano Uneme who was Kyōgoku’s spiritual teacher etc. (Morrow, 2014, p.4).. Apart from being an encyclopaedia, Taiseikyō was also an expanded version of a historical text called Kujiki. The original Kujiki is a history of the Japanese nation that was written approximately between the seventh and tenth centuries.
Before publishing the Taiseikyō Kyōgoku Kuranosuke had already published another allegedly extended version of Kujiki which he called Sendai Kuji Hongi (the title is the same as the full name of the Kujiki which at the time held to be the oldest Japanese chronicle, predating Kojiki. It was demoted to the status of a forgery only later, in the eighteenth century. Kujiki was at the time believed to have been written by Shôtoku Taishi (Morrow, 2014, p.4).
32 When Kyōgoku Kuranosuke met Chō’on Dokai he recommended that he should also talk to Kyōgoku’s spiritual teacher – Nakano Uneme. There is a record that describes how Nakano and Chō’on met for the first time. According to the record the very moment Chō’on was introduced to Nakano he felt as if Nakano possessed some rare ancient knowledge. Chō’on had been previously informed that Nakano possessed the world’s only complete concealed version of the Kujiki (Morrow, 2014, p.4).
Not only did Chō’on trust this information but he also felt as if Nakano had become his spiritual teacher and he was now “initiated into an esoteric lineage”. This is indeed a very esoteric take on the situation. As Avery Morrow notes, this sounds as if Chō’on had founded some sort of a hermitic order (Morrow, 2014, p.4).. I suppose one can claim that Taiseikyō was among other things also a product of the relationship between Chō’on and Nakano.
Taisekyō is arguably also a very esoteric work.
Even though it is known that Nakano was not a monk and had never received any official training as a monk or a shrine keeper, he did write a lot on the teachings in Tokugawa Japan.
He also possibly expressed his own thoughts on some of the teachings. Taiseikyō claims that Prince Shōtoku Taishi authored a constitution divided in five articles (one article for peasants, one for Buddhists, one for Shintoists, one for Confucianists and one for Politicians) (Morrow, 2014, p.3).
The constitutions were published in 1675 by Nakano Uneme, Chō’on etc. The language used in those constitutions make it impossible for them to have been written in the 7th century (Morrow, 2014, p.7). I would argue that it is almost impossible to analyse those constitutions without first taking a brief look at some of the teachings that had influenced the life of people of the Tokugawa period. In this chapter I have very briefly taken a look at
Confucianism; in other chapters I am also going to talk about Shinto and Buddhism, since will argue that Taiseikyō is a reaction to this ideological strife that was taking place in Japan at the time (between different religions). The relationship between the different teachings in Tokugawa Japan was rather difficult and the different teachings often denied the other’s teachings (Morrow, 2014, p.4).
In the alleged five constitutions Shōtoku Taishi informed Buddhists, Confucianists and
Shintoists that each of their teachings had its place in life and was needed in Japan (Morrow, 2014, p.4).
The Taiseikyo does not contain as much information on Jindai moji as some other works that I am going to discuss later. According to the Taiseikyō, Shōtoku Taishi found some buried documents in a place called Awa-no-miya, which were allegedly written in the divine age.
The documents were allegedly written in an ancient Japanese script (jindai moji). From these ancient texts Shōtoku Taishi had gained knowledge about Japanese history.